from Events/Announcements
In a recent article in the Monitor on Psychology (October, 2009), the American Psychological Association (APA) reporter, Christopher Munsey, provided a summary report of the APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The Task Force claimed to have reviewed decades of research, and concluded that there was "insufficient evidence that such [reorientation] treatments work."
The task force members stated that the studies they reviewed lacked the methodological rigor to offer any conclusions regarding effectiveness of reorientation therapies. Yet the task force members proceeded to make conclusions and offer recommendations based on what they called "insufficient evidence."
Doesn't "insufficient evidence" also mean that there is insufficient evidence that sexual orientation change efforts do NOT work? Insufficient evidence means that we do not know, and therefore can make no statements either in support of or against a particular form of psychological care.
No Other Form of Therapy Backed by "Sufficient Evidence"
What's ironic is that APA could appoint a task force to investigate virtually any type of psychotherapy currently provided, and they would likely arrive at the same conclusion: insufficient evidence.
In this instance, APA, through their appointed task force, has violated the Leona Tyler Principle once again. This principle, which was accepted by APA and never rescinded, demands that when there is insufficient evidence, that APA should remain silent. This does not prevent members of the task force individually or collectively from making statements, but it DOES prevent APA from taking scientifically questionable positions, making questionable resolutions or issuing proclamations.
What's ironic, is that prior to the issuance of the Task Force Report, the task force members were, as individuals, already on the record as opposing any attempts to change sexual orientation through psychotherapy. One wonders -- with APA's passion for diversity, where was the diversity on the task force? With this task force, one could make a very strong case for confirmation bias.
To the task force members' credit, they do acknowledge the importance of client self-determination and religious diversity. Judith Glassgold, the Task Force chair, is quoted in The Wall Street Journal as saying, "We're not trying to encourage people to become 'ex-gay,' but we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else." She makes no allowance, however, for non-religious individuals to seek psychological care when they are distressed by their unwanted attractions and seek help to diminish those attractions and make changes in their lives consistent with their personal values or worldviews.
Munsey ended his article with the following:
"Julie Harren-Hamilton, Ph.D., president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), said she appreciated what she described as the task force's recognition that clients have a right to self-determination, and its respect for religious diversity. But she disagreed with the task force's main conclusions, and charged that the task force was composed only of members opposed to sexual-orientation change efforts. 'We believe that if the task force had been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion, that homosexuality is not invariably fixed in all people, that some people can and do change,' she said."
In these few sentences, Dr. Harren-Hamilton has provided a minority report deserving of inclusion in the APA Task Force Report. She has succinctly acknowledged what science can say about homosexuality, has focused on the ethicality of client self-determination, the importance of religious diversity, and has correctly noted the bias of the task force members.
One only need check the Curriculum Vitae of those on the task force to conclude that Dr. Harren-Hamilton's case for confirmation bias of the Task Force members does have merit.